Â鶹APP

UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision to suspend him without pay. UNAT held that UNDT was alert to the injury which the prolonged delay caused the Appellant. On the Appellant¡¯s complaint that UNRWA DT did not address his complaint regarding the deduction by UNRWA from his personal Provident Fund contributions upon his dismissal, apparently, to recoup an overpayment, UNAT held that there was no merit in the complaint and the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact on the part of the UNRWA DT when it determined these...

UNAT held that the Appellant raised the same issues he raised before UNRWA DT and did not identify how the judgment was in any way defective. UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the required grounds of appeal and failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by UNRWA DT and found no error of law or fact in its decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. UNAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from UNAT. UNAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, UNAT did not find any fault with UNRWA DT¡¯s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. UNAT found that the evidence showed that UNRWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. UNAT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. UNAT found that the Appellant¡¯s application for judicial review was not...

UNAT held that there was merit in the Appellant¡¯s argument that the issue to be decided was not whether he was entitled or not to the SOA, but the refusal of its retroactive payment at the correct rate from the date of the signature of his post description. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred when it failed to consider that the Appellant was contesting a specific decision denying him a retrospective payment of the higher SOA. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law in deciding that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being brought within the scope of judicial...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s request for leave to submit new evidence since the Secretary-General had the opportunity to present the evidence before UNDT. UNAT further rejected the staff member¡¯s requests in response and to conduct an oral hearing finding that the appealed issues had been adequately clarified. UNAT held that UNDT had not erroneously substituted itself for the Administration. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s findings were supported by evidence and would, therefore, not interfere with the determination as to the existence of...

UNAT held that, since the Appellant had not made an application to the UNRWA Internal Justice Committee on the issue of the recusal and conflict of interest, it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish in his appeal that it was unreasonable for UNRWA DT to conclude that there was no evidence of bias in the decision to abolish his post. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. UNAT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member¡¯s bank account. UNAT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. UNAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. UNAT held that although the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had no merit, it...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. UNAT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the UNRWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. UNAT affirmed UNRWA DT¡¯s finding...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. UNAT held that UNRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the